The OP fallacies are actually kind of silly. You'd have to be interacting with pretty dim witted people, (or people in a whole lot of denial) who use this as evidence that God exists. There is a lot of logical and scientific evidence that the existence of life and the universe be explained in other ways, but there is no evidence that God didn't create all these things. In other words, we can not disprove the existence of God, and it would be very difficult to do so with current methods.

This is why it's futile to argue these points at all, but people just keep on doing it, unaware that there is absolutely no logic in either argument.

God exists based on intuition, feelings, other worldly experiences, faith, fear, history, the list goes on- there's just very little scientific logic behind it. And if God exists and (for whatever reason) does not want to reveal himself, do you think he would make it mathematically possible for humans to figure it out? It's God. Scientific arguments for or against nature of God are basically irrelevant.

Google "Russell's teapot".

Dost thou love Life? Then do not squander Time; for that's the Stuff Life is made of.

The OP fallacies are actually kind of silly. You'd have to be interacting with pretty dim witted people, (or people in a whole lot of denial) who use this as evidence that God exists. There is a lot of logical and scientific evidence that the existence of life and the universe be explained in other ways, but there is no evidence that God didn't create all these things. In other words, we can not disprove the existence of God, and it would be very difficult to do so with current methods.

This is why it's futile to argue these points at all, but people just keep on doing it, unaware that there is absolutely no logic in either argument.

God exists based on intuition, feelings, other worldly experiences, faith, fear, history, the list goes on- there's just very little scientific logic behind it. And if God exists and (for whatever reason) does not want to reveal himself, do you think he would make it mathematically possible for humans to figure it out? It's God. Scientific arguments for or against nature of God are basically irrelevant.

There are avenues of thought worth entertaining, however. For example, when thinking of an eternal God, you can think of an eternal universe. I can touch and explore the universe daily, so if you apply Occam's Razor it is apparent a universe with no creator is preferable to a creator with no creator.

Ultimately, I agree though. There is are no 1+1 questions, which is awfully upsetting.

Believing in a god is the same as believing in our parents. We believe in our parents when we are young and vulnerable and in need of our parents physically and emotionally. But when we are adults we are no longer young and vulnerable and no longer in need of physical and emotional support, except in our own minds.